swansont

Perhaps, but the suns are going to block each other many times over the course of the year.

! Moderator Note As this is posted in Biology, please keep religion out of it.

Looking for reasons/purposes is outside the realm of science. As for why, it's inherent in QM. You can have superpositions of particle states that involve more than one particle.

Lost? I'm sure it's around here somewhere. What are you talking about?

Purpose isn't the right word. Physics effects don't really have a purpose. We something about know why it happens, since it falls out of quantum mechanics, and we know we can do it, because it's been done experimentally.

Entangled particles are not in a definite state. Once you measure, they are. You can't have entanglement if you can tell the difference between the particles. There is no "connection" to measure. That's one of the weird aspects of it. Yes, you can entangle more than two particles.

Once you measure the entangled property, it is no longer in a superposition. That breaks the entanglement.

Possibly more chaotic, but we'd still have seasons. It would depend on the parameters. Also, remember that this wobbling is over a fairly long time scale, The nature of the seasons might change over millions of years, but not from one year to the next. That has certain evolutionary impacts, to be sure, but not immediate ones. Take an orbit that changed the distance to the sun by ~10% between aphelion and perihelion, but no axial tilt. That's about a factor of 20% change in power. Some pretty significant temperature swings would probably result over the course of a year. The distinction would be that there is no difference between the hemispheres — it would be e.g. winter everywhere when the planet was far from the sun. How much of an effect would wobble be for such a planet?

Sometimes. The whole line of inquiry is overly broad and simplistic. The topic is no doubt more nuanced than this.

Depends on what you mean by vanity; many kids end up preferentially playing with the box the toy came in rather than the toy itself. Not much vanity involved in owning a box. But if you mean non-essential, then yes — it's not food, clothing or shelter. Playing with the box also lends itself to refuting the notion that they must think the toy is the real world object it represents. The box can be almost anything. It's fodder for imagination. I was under the impression that children play (in part) as a form of imitation of adult behavior. They may play "house" and have one pretend to go off to work, even though they have no real clue what that means. A child plays with a tractor or truck, with only a minimal notion of what's actually involved with what a real truck does. And the kid can pretend and make that tractor or truck do things that no real one could do, such as fly. Imagination not constrained by reality.

Because that's what the peak emission is, at around 550 nm. That's around the division between green and yellow. The moon stabilizes the earth, but to say the moon causes the seasons is a stretch. The seasons are caused by the tilt. One could envision seasons (of a sort) being caused by an elliptical orbit that's more pronounced than ours. Two suns might just mean the orbit needs to be further away, or the suns have a lower power output (i.e. cooler, more reddish in color)

! Moderator Note A reminder that this was moved out of speculations, so let's continue seeing some links to back up statements, and, unless you're an active researcher in this field, "one idea I have had" is not appropriate in the science section, and also not appropriate in someone else's thread.

No, not really. And your opinion doesn't matter. It's what you can show with models and data.

So much for this, then https://twitter.com/JohnCleese/status/683681888687538177

We get about 1 inquiry a year about why e.g. there is no economics forum. So it's a question of supply and demand.

Exactly. From an inertial view, the point is not stationary, even though it looks that way from the earth. It's a special orbit, meaning there still has to be a force.

That assumes that the forces are equal at that point, but that's not what L1 is. The force at L1 is not zero. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point

'nuf said

In terms of atomic physics the relation to gravity is not vague at all. It's only at the far reaches of GR where this is an issue. It's a little vague where your "it's a little vague" is coming from.

! Moderator Note From rule 2.7 members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos You may open a new thread if you include the material you wish to discuss in it, but any threads started with just a link to a paper to download will be closed. Also, any non-mainstream thread should be opened in speculations

Photons have no charge, and yet they have an electric field. So this can't be right. Charge is a property of a particle. Elemental bonds perform no work. There is nothing unresolved about this. We can discuss Newtonian gravity, which is a force, and yet no work is done on something moving in a circular orbit. Duration doesn't enter into it. No tricks involved. Just knowing what the definition of work is. Do you? What direction of motion? Electrons are waves. QM has no trajectories for electrons in an atom. Funny that, since the solution for the states in an atom involve the energy of the system, the possible values of which are eigenvalues. Energy conservation is inherent in that.

LaTex tutorial

The main problem here is that "anti-matter travels backwards in time" is not the right phrasing, which has probably been whittled down and reshaped in all of the retellings, much like the "whisper" game. Antimatter traveling forward in time is indistinguishable from matter traveling backward in time. It's represented that way in Feynman diagram.

A photon is not an "electrical entities", and it is not "not dissimilar to lightning". Photons have no charge. There is no current flow with photons. There is no work done in maintaining bonds. "Work" has a specific meaning within physics; the energy of the system is constant, so no work needs to be done. There is absolutely no issue with conservation of energy here. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

"Light source" in a physics context is not restricted to visible light; it just means electromagnetic radiation. Even outside of that, UV and IR are often considered light.